/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3150608
You'd have to use a more powerful laser because faster light has more energy, otherwise you'd have to wait 4.6 billion years between sending and receiving (because of casualty inversion, you can send something and have it grandfather paradox then send a response before it gets there) so powerful laser is required but other than that i dunno what you want, I mean power/speed doesn't reach an asymptote so the more powerful the better I think

>>3084523
I think your guidelines are excessively narrow and that you leave too much up to individual interpretation. However, I'll dive in again here.

Read this comic. Note that it is full of inside jokes and puns that only physicists would truly appreciate (though I think there is a little bit in there for chemists, too). Also note that he is not simply "name-dropping" a concept, but has made it the theme of the entire comic. There are several others like this in the archive.

Sure, the actual storyline comics of Dresden Codak are mostly "science-fantasy". But they still have plenty of legitimate science jokes in them, or at the very least science fiction jokes, and would be of interest to many /sci/ visitors.

Hell, SMBC isn't even about science most of the time and about 50% of XKCD is nostalgia and cult references.

You know how magnets are magnets because they have residual bits of gravity left in them, since they came out of the ground?
Solar photons are different from lightular photons because they have residual bits of nuclear fusion in them.

>But seriously, as long as your artificial light source provides the correct wavelength of UV light, you can photolyze cholesterol into vitamin D in your body. It's just that most typical lights minimize the emission of light of such high energy, because it doesn't actually light anything. Wasted power, higher electricity cost for no reason.

Then what would negate the torque of the tail prop? Your machine is collapsing on a series of self contradictions.

Even in a best case scenario, where all of the mass is converted into energy, the most you can gain is by launching the petrol straight down with a velocity, which will impart 1/2mv² of kinetic energy on your vehicle. With ordinary limits of mass and easily attainable velocities, the best you'd be able to do is launch yourself up a little ways and come back down.

I could build a similar catapult for less money.

Has anyone seen the NOVA episode Can We Live Forever? I thought it was pretty cool, especially the part about regrowing organs.

>>2411954
>I was expecting it to condense into a solid wafer of pure baconanium.
That's what I was expecting too. But, in science, you have to put aside your preconceptions and eat bacon.

This makes me rage, yes...some asshole gets in front of kids and spouts nonsense and untruths...
but...
how can you censor that? Legally and morally, I mean. If you censor that, you're setting a precedent for squashing information, and material which may not be considered true now may actually be truth.
Not that I think what this guy is saying will ever be true. Just that, if you shut him up, you run the risk of shutting up scientists that give contradictory evidence to established dogmas, which is arguably central to the scientific process.

Hey /sci/, I want you to consider a body moving at speed through a fluid of some density. At speed V1, it would require force F to induce acceleration A. At speed V2>V1, it would require a larger force to produce the same acceleration A. If an experimenter was ignorant of the concept of drag, one would clearly think that the mass was increasing by F=MA.
Interestingly, an analogous system arises when traveling at relativistic speeds. If you were to assume that a body of constant in a vacuum is actually traveling through some fluid - let's call it an aether, as a throwback to classicalism - of a finite density, the solution reduces to that of apparent mass increase due to relativity.
Furthermore, if you assume that the density is due to a distribution of particles, the particle mass required for observed mass increases is in the predicted rest mass range for the higgs boson.

Supersymmetry, how does it work?

Science!

The universe is 13.75 billion years old.
Galaxies and stars formed after about a billion years.
Planets form alongside their stars.
On earth, life arose less than a billion years after the earth coalesced.
However, the sun and earth formed really late - 9.5 billion years after the big bang. Planets, and therefore life, could have arisen in two.
So, a given species could have had 7 billion years of potential head start at best case. Now you see the scale of the problem.
However, consider the rate at which our society advances. If that is typical, even a hundred years head start of a similar civilization would mean massive technological superiority over current earth.

>>2259620
Science is to math as sex is to masturbation.

>"In one experiment, students were shown a list of words and then asked to recall words from it, after which they were told to type words that were randomly selected from the same list. Spookily, the students were better at recalling words that they would later type."
Assuming I'm interpreting that correctly, and they're not lying through their teeth, that's...interesting. Do you have the link to the paper? I want to tear it apart for pseudoscientific flaws.

Physical waves travel at a finite speed of sound in whichever medium it is supposed that they are traversing.
We consider that light is a wave that traverses through no medium. However, what if we instead consider as Maxwell did that there "could be wavelike disturbances in the combined electromagnetic field" [A brief history of time, pp19] - these waves are indeed traveling through a medium. The only difference is, in this case the medium through which the wave travels is not visible, in the strictest sense. Only the wave is visible. Is this not, then, so different from Boyle's luminiferous aether?

What if one was to further consider that, although this aether does not strongly interact, it does have a finite viscosity, and thus a finite resistance to flow and would exert a finite force on objects moving at speed through it. Sound waves in water are observable, and it is difficult to traverse at speed the medium through which they travel - just so with light and the aether, which may exert a small but measured force on a body traveling through it, increasing as the speed does, which we measure as an increase in mass! Instead, the mass remains constant, but encounters resistance. Objects require more energy to accelerate at high percentages of c not because they become more massive, but because the aether offers higher impedance to flow!

/Sci/, important question here. Is there a way to completely negate your emotions? I want to study harder in science but I'm too emotionally unstable; I'm too "feely" I guess. Basically, how do I become a computer that runs on logic instead of an emotional hippy like I am now?

>>1894022
Antimagnetoresonation propagates through the aether at great speeds with little power drop. It is made by flowing phlogiston and in turn induces phlogiston to flow.

Because of light having wave particle duality. Usually it acts like a wave, so when you're at the beach there's a lot of waves so you get more sun waves so you get burned. When you're away from the beach it acts like a particle, so the particles of air (phlogiston and aether and all the other elementary gas particles) are able to knock the light away from you. This is why even on a windy day you still get sunburned on the beach, because particles can't knock waves out of the way.

Hello chaps, this morning I discovered I was low on milk for my breakfast proteins. While on my way to the grocery store I exceeded the superluminal because I was in such a hurry. But when I arrived back home I had discovered I was not out of milk at all! In fact I had several gallons in the fridge waiting for me!

How odd.

ITT: Queer Tales of Superluminal Travel.

>>1567693